Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : Trump Destroying US Global Power

Episode Date: April 15, 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen : Trump Destroying US Global PowerSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for

freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Wednesday, April 15th, 2006, apologies for the late start. These things happen. Our guest, of course, is known to all of you. Professor Glenn Dyson, Professor Dyson, a pleasure, and thank you for waiting for me. I do want to talk to you at some length about some recent comments you made with which I'm in full agreement about President Trump destroying United States global power. But before we get there, what is your take on the events in Islamabad last weekend? between the US and Iran?

Well, from what I understand, the US more or less walked away from the talks, which was also they had a very strange atmosphere because initially the agreement around the ceasefire was that the US should, well, we'll start with the point of departure, which being Iran's 10-point plan, but that never really entered. Instead, the US put a lot of demands on Iran and when it looked like the Iranians would, submit and all effectively capitulate, they walked away from this. And again, at the same time, we had this a bit disturbing articles coming out of the Washington Post suggesting that, well, we should make it clear that if they don't back down or accept these terms, we'll kill them all essentially. So I spoke with Professor Marandi, who was, you know, there in Islamabad. I actually spoke with him when he was at the airport waiting for the plane to leave. And, you know, they were apparently all a bit concerned.

that there might be an effort to kill the delegation on their way back to Iran. Who were they worried would do the killing? Well, I guess Israel has a history of this, of course, but especially with the Palestinians killing off their negotiators. But it's also, yeah, possibly the Israelis could have an interest to make sure the United States didn't want to continue with the negotiations, but also the US itself has gone after a lot of the political leaders, in Iran. So it seemed, you know, possible that they could do this as well. But, you know, they had a Pakistani escort, which brought them. But I don't, there wasn't any incidents from what I understand. But again, this shows what diplomacy has become, this normalization of killing political leaders and diplomatic staff, the ones who are supposed to, you know, chart a path to peace. It's, yeah, it's quite disturbing. But overall, though, it looks a bit deceptive now, these negotiations because the ceasefire is still ongoing.

But the US just started a blockade on Iranian ports. A lot of weaponry is arriving in the region. They're talking now about destroying Hezbollah. And it's just, you know, this isn't what you would do in a ceasefire if you're trying to accommodate the other side, unless this is the max pressure that is either will destroy your own. civilization unless you accept our peace agreement. I'm wondering if Vice President Vance was just a scapegoat here. I mean, he's not an experienced diplomat.

He did not have experienced diplomats with him. He had the two Zionist real estate agents who tricked the Iranians in June and again in February in whom the Iranians suggested not be there. We spoke with Professor Mirandi on air a few hours ago. he told us that Vice President Vance seemed nervous, ill at ease, and couldn't answer yes or no. Every time he had to come up with the yes or no answer, he had to go make a phone call.

I wonder who he was calling, either Washington or Tel Aviv. What kind of a negotiation is this? Yeah, no, it doesn't seem like he went there with a proper mandate to negotiate anything. But it also begs the question, why was that? the negotiations handle so terribly. And of course, many different explanations, but the two main ones would be either, yeah, they don't know what they're doing.

So it's amateur hour or, alternatively, there's no intention of making any permanent peace anyways. Because what Iranians are looking for is not a ceasefire which allows the U.S. and Israel to essentially continue this, mooring the lawn policies of just gradually weakening Iran with sanctions and bombing campaigns. They want a proper political settlement where they can live in the same region. And, well, they're not getting this. And I also get the impression from both Washington and Tel Aviv that they're not ready to accept any lasting peace with Iran.

So any peace agreement would simply be a temporary stepping stone towards the final world, which is still defeated Iran. It has a lot of similarities to the Ukraine war, by the way. That is, whenever the Europeans, for example, speak about peace in Ukraine, they never actually want to normalize relations with Russia. They never want to talk about their security concerns, or learn to live on the same continent. It's always a temporary scheme, something to, you know, look for an opportunity to regroup and then confront them from a more favorable position in the future.

So I think this is what war is the Iranians. So I'm not sure if Vance actually came with a proper mandate to negotiate any peace at all. He really didn't have a good week. He just spent three days campaigning to Hungarian voters in English, trying to get them to vote for Victor Orban, who was trounced. He got nowhere in Islamabad, and he came home as this relatively brand-new Catholic to find himself in the midst of a spat between the whole. father and his boss, and he tried to walk a very narrow line between the two of them during the

course of which he reported the lecture of the Pope on theology. Oh, my goodness. I don't think any of this is going to play well for his political career, whether the audience is Catholic or not. Was this a setup? It was just an excuse to justify the two or three-week ceasefire so the Americans and Israelis could regroup and rearm? Well, it certainly appears so because there doesn't seem to be any real efforts of putting an end to this. And I also doubt that the Americans are willing, that Trump administration is willing to make a piece along these lines, because the Iranians essentially want, they don't want to go back to the status quo the way it was before the war. they want to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

Because if you keep doing it over and over again, at some point the US and Israel might succeed in destroying Iran or as Trump would frame it to kill a civilization. So again, I think it's almost impossible for the US to leave with the Strait of Hormuz in the hands of Iran, simply because the repercussions would be too great. For one, Iran would strengthen immensely if it would be able to collect the toll,

that is, it would be able to collect its reparations from it. They would also be able to put a squeeze on the Gulf states to expel the US bases if they want to still use Strait of Hormuz. And they could essentially decouple or undermine the petro dollar by demanding that oil passing through are traded in non-dollar currency. So there's many reasons why the Strait of Hormuzons. would eventually become a nuclear weapon that the US should fear. So I find it very hard.

When Trump agreed to discussing based on the 10-point plan, it didn't look genuine because I have a hard time imagining that he would accept this as the point of departure. But again, they just wanted a ceasefire. Now they're talking about extending the ceasefire. But while they're doing the ceasefire, as I said, then they're still doing a blockade on Iran. They're still continuing their campaign in Lebanon. They're still building up weapons and talking about another strike against Iran. So it doesn't seem like they're negotiating in good faith. But again, this has become the trend.

What is your understanding of the status of the blockade? Pepe Escobar, who was on with us just a few minutes ago, says that ships that Iran wants to get through or getting through the American Navy is 500 miles away from the straight of four moves I don't know how they can come in there's only two ships out there how can they possibly conduct a blockade under those circumstances I mean I'm not a military guy I don't I don't know that you are but what is your understanding of the blockade is it effective or isn't it no I I think I served one year in the military 27 years ago

I wouldn't qualify as a military guy either. You were a baby when you were in the military. Well, the thing is, I think overall the plan is a bit problematic because it involves then stopping Chinese ships, stopping Indian ships, but primarily most of the oil from Iran is sold to the Chinese. So, you know, so this is, you know, more or less openly, even Scott Besant made a comment that, you know, if China, you know, they can get oil, but they won't get Iranian oil anymore. I heard an American senator, I forgot his name, also pointing out that if we're able to, you know, crash China's economy by blocking access to oil, then that would just be wonderful.

So the... That senator doesn't know what he's talking about, crash China's economy. But, yeah, but it's so from a plan. it's a bit problematic because now the US is engaged in the naval blockade, which then threatens other great powers. But in terms of the way that it's carried out, it's also very problematic because the military, as you said, the Navy can't be that close to the Iranian shores.

So if it has to keep a safe distance, then the space becomes too wide. It's hard to see how they're going to be able to enforce it in a proper way. But what they could do is start attacking some ships because then it would be difficult. Instead of just turning them around because then it would be difficult to get the insurances and all. But once you have the US Navy starting to blow up Chinese vessels, you know, we might be looking at the World War III. So I'm not sure how they're going to pull it off. I have my doubts about the success of this.

And if it was this great silver bullet that would feel, it makes the question why this wasn't done sooner or earlier so I think the answer is that I think most people realize that this isn't going to work at all here's a prime minister Netanyahu tell me if you're surprised by any of this this is two days ago talking about his communications with vice president Vance and the people of the administration as he calls them Chris cut number two I spoke yesterday with Vice President J.D. Vance. He called me from his plane on the way back from Washington. He reported to me in D.T. Administration due every day on the development of the

negotiations. In this case, the explosion in the negotiations, the explosion came from the American side, which was not willing to tolerate the blatant violation of the agreement to enter negotiations by Iran. Essentially, the agreement was that there would be a ceasefire and and Iran would immediately open the crossings. They didn't do that. The Americans were not willing to accept it. He also conveyed to me that the central issue on the table from the perspective of President Trump and the United States

is the removal of all enriched material and ensuring that there is no more enrichment in the coming years, and this could be for decades. So he reported to me in detail, speaking of the vice president, as the people of this administration do every day. Does that surprise you that he would say such things? No, I think you all.

It's of course important for our politician. Also, he has a lot of domestic opposition and problems at home. So it's of course good for him to build up a reputation that the Americans are showing him this kind of respect. But I don't doubt that it's true as well. I mean, the US and Israel tends to be joined at the hip here. And so, yeah, this daily calls for it to keep him updated. It makes sense.

But also what is referring to, though, is stated almost as a fact that the deal was that the Iranians should immediately open the straight-over moves. I have not heard this confirmed by the Iranians at all. And indeed, if the 10-point plan of the Iranians was the starting point of this negotiations or conditions for the ceasefire, then it would make any sense at all. Furthermore, no enrichment as well. This is something I would be very hard for the Iranians to accept. If it's an issue of nuclear weapons, then yeah, they would likely accept some intrusive inspections.

But in terms of no enrichment, it does make any sense. They're a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And with this, they have committed themselves to not acquiring nuclear weapons. But that same agreement gives them the right to pursue a civilian nuclear program. and that's what they insist that they will continue to do. Also, at the same time, of course, one often points out the exact opposite. The Israelis have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they do have nuclear weapons. So the fact that they can't have a civilian program, but Israelis can have a nuclear weapons program,

this is not acceptable to the Iranians. So I'm not sure. Yeah, so there are some. Floss or at least with the open straight. I think this, yeah, if this is where they broke off, then there's something strange. CNN is reporting, this should be no surprise. I'm going to read the quote from CNN. Iran has been working to remove debris blocking the entrances to its underground missile bases during the ceasefire,

according to satellite images reviewed by CNN. the images front end loaders can be seen scooping up rubble from the blocked tunnels and loading it into nearby dump trucks. So probably everybody, the U.S., the Israelis, and the Iranians are doing the same thing during the ceasefire regrouping and getting ready for more violence. Let's change the subject a little bit. Is Trump destroying the United States global order, the United States global power? Well, I guess short answer is yes. I do think that in order that the status quo wasn't durable.

So I do recognize that there's a need in the U.S. to make some big shifts. Because, you know, after the Cold War, the main security strategy of the United States was a hegemonic peace. That is, its security was linked to global primacy. As long as the U.S. was dominant and no one country or group of countries could challenge the US. This was the source of its security. This was very much spelled out very directly,

at least in the national security strategy back in 2002. And it kind of been this ongoing theme. However, what many recognize now what many people were concerned about, especially in the 90s when this unipolar moment was announced, was that over time the US will begin to exhaust all its resources. We see this with debt. We see this with the social problems,

political polarization. And meanwhile, its efforts to claim global primacy would then incentivize the rest of the international system to collectively balance the U.S. We also see this with bricks, for example, or China, Iran, Russia, all them coming together, seeking to balance off the hegemonic aspirations of the United States. So for this reason, given that the distribution of power has now shifted towards multipolarity, there's an argument now that the U.S. should perhaps scale back the empire to preserve the revolution. public or what the US has traditionally done, historically done in wars. That is as an offshore balancer, you know, it tended to join wars late just to make sure that the end of the war ended up with a balance of power and equilibrium and then pull back.

So others wouldn't balance the US. So I think that this was the moment for the US to make some big changes. That is, you know, as probably kissing her advice that Trump in his first administration, we should reach out, for example, to the Russians. so they don't get too close to the Chinese. And I think this is what we saw in the national security strategy. That is the idea that the US should focus perhaps on the Western Hemisphere and secondary East Asia, but then pivot a bit away from Europe and the Middle East.

So all of this kind of made sense. So when people criticize Trump for this, I don't really agree because I don't think the status quo was sustainable anymore. But something very different now. This is right, right, right. I don't think he could have imagined the mess that he's created with this war. But back, you know, it was a quick fix. It was a weekend war, I think.

Another Venezuela. I wonder, I wonder who talked him into the fact that it's going to be a 96-hour war. Whose intel did he accept and rejected the American intel? The Israelis. Yes. I had a conversation with Joe Kent, and he was making that point as well. that the Israelis are quite entrenched towards intrusive in terms of their influence on the US decision-making, especially with Donald Trump.

So I think it fit in with what he wanted to play, which was he can get all of these good deals, better deals than his predecessors, because he's stronger, he's more respected. And also, yeah, what I learned from Kent was that the Ventuelan mission, apparently with the success caused a bit of hubris and they wanted to replay it in Iran, even though it made very little sense from my perspective, because these are two very different conflicts, two very different countries. There's no one's going to fly into Iran, kidnap leaders, for example. So we're talking about a completely different war. So that success wasn't transferable. Also, you can argue that the great powers,

be it Russia, China, they would not interfere in America's backyard in Venezuela, but they will interfere in their own backyard, which is Iran. So none of this ever made any sense to me. But I think the Israelis convinced him, but there's also in Trump's nature. He wants these quick fixes, which is why he likes this surprise attacks, which is why he hopes this blockade will work,

just throwing something at the wall and hoping that it will stick. The United States leaves, ignores or becomes indifferent to NATO, Does NATO still plan to continue to arm Ukraine? Well, NATO to a large extent, well, is the United States. I think the U.S. has spent much of its weapons now in the Middle East, so it has less to offer. Of course, it's not exactly the same weapons which are being sent to Ukraine,

which is spent in the Middle East. But I think the U.S. will continue to sell weapons to the Europeans so they can give it to the Ukrainians. the Americans will continue to provide the intelligence for what the Russian targets to strike and the military planning. So essentially everything they're warning Russia and Iran not to do in Iran is what the U.S. I think will continue to do in Ukraine, which also does make much sense. That's why I thought Trump's initial instinct when he said he would end this war in 24 hours. While that was delusional, I thought at least the ambition made sense because, the more the US spends its resources in Europe, the more less resources has in other places,

and also the more it will push Russia in the arms of China. And we see this even in Middle East. A lot of the weapons they could have used all the patriots and all. They went to the Ukrainians. So it already diminished some of America's fighting capabilities. So again, not ending the – I think his instincts were right. for ending the forever wars in the Middle East, ending the Ukraine war, and starting to prioritize and focus the military capabilities,

all of this made sense, which is why I said there had to be adjustments to the status quo, but what is doing now doesn't really make any sense in all. And even though I would say, if he walks away from NATO, I think it's good riddance, but still does mean that the whole partnership with Europeans have to be sunk. So, you know, threatening to annex a lot of Greenland for example this is just throwing away decades of a good relations so that doesn't make much sense to me either so there's some some policies which I don't

don't understand to be honest and you know I would like to think there's some you know complicated game is playing but all these things like insulting the pope and you know pretending or posting pictures of himself as Jesus and yeah this little insults to different world leaders it doesn't really It's very hard to convince anyone that this serves American interests in the world. Right. Professor Deeson, I must run, thank you very much. Thank you for patiently waiting for me to get here.

Today was beyond my control. Thank you for your time and your analysis. As always, we'll look forward to seeing you again soon, my friend. Thank you, Judge. Thank you. If you're watching us live in 10 minutes at 3 o'clock Eastern this afternoon, the great Phil Giraldi, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.